Hey there Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Statement to the House

Announcements Posted on
Post on TSR and win a prize! Find out more... 10-04-2014
    • 27 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SamF1992)
    On what specific grounds is he being deported btw?

    If it's due to being a threat to public security, then surely he should be tried in a court of law here and imprisoned/deported/suitably punished if/when found guilty.

    If it's due to his being suspected of terrorist activity in Jordan, then the above becomes irrelevant and there should be a guarantee of no torture as a condition for his deportation unless the government are happy to be complicit in torture.

    If the government are deporting him on the grounds of the first principle, it's clearly an overreach of executive power into what should be a judicial function.

    If the government are doing it on the grounds of the latter, it's completely irresponsible to draw a line arbitralily on when torture is and is not acceptable. If you want torture to be legal for Islamic terror suspects, then go ahead, make a law on it, I'd disagree but at least there'd be a clearly definable point at which the government feels the potential for torture is justified, rather than an arbitrary picking and choosing of an individual who they dislike and percieve as a threat, which is what this seems to be.
    I couldn't agree with this more.

    The government's aggressive rejection of the ongoing debate over this case is undemocratic and should be condemned. The government cannot be allowed to arrogantly cast aside the opposition to their reactionary and immature handling of the Qatada case.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JPKC)
    I do not support the decision of the Home Secretary to extradite Abu Qatada before talks had concluded with the MUN Rep for Jordan. Agree to disagree on this issue.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Birchington)
    I couldn't agree with this more.

    The government's aggressive rejection of the ongoing debate over this case is undemocratic and should be condemned. The government cannot be allowed to arrogantly cast aside the opposition to their reactionary and immature handling of the Qatada case.
    Undemocratic? Undemocratic for an elected Government to respond to the wishes of the people by ignoring a decision made by an undemocratic body, and deporting a terrorist who was not only a threat to the public, but was costing a phenomenal amount to the Taxpayer?
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SamF1992)
    On what specific grounds is he being deported btw?

    If it's due to being a threat to public security, then surely he should be tried in a court of law here and imprisoned/deported/suitably punished if/when found guilty.

    If it's due to his being suspected of terrorist activity in Jordan, then the above becomes irrelevant and there should be a guarantee of no torture as a condition for his deportation unless the government are happy to be complicit in torture.

    If the government are deporting him on the grounds of the first principle, it's clearly an overreach of executive power into what should be a judicial function.

    If the government are doing it on the grounds of the latter, it's completely irresponsible to draw a line arbitralily on when torture is and is not acceptable. If you want torture to be legal for Islamic terror suspects, then go ahead, make a law on it, I'd disagree but at least there'd be a clearly definable point at which the government feels the potential for torture is justified, rather than an arbitrary picking and choosing of an individual who they dislike and percieve as a threat, which is what this seems to be.
    I have outlined the reasons for deporting Abu Qatada in my statement to the House and in the recent motion on the topic.

    I could not care less if he is tortured when he returns to Jordan. He has been found guilty of a number of crimes, including terrorist related activity, in Jordan; as Home Secretary I refuse to harbour criminals in this country who have unspent prison time in another country. Upon his return to Jordan, if the authorities decide to use torture, then that is their decision.

    The Government has a duty of care towards its citizens. I would not be comfortable with a terrorist living on my road, and I should therefore not be comfortable with a terrorist living on my neighbour's road. Qatada is a threat to our society and people and an excessive cost and drain of police resources.

    As Home Secretary, I have the power to deport anyone, without the consent of the House. The reason I made the statement was to update the House of my activities and of a high profile case.

    I believe I have made the right decision in the interests of the British people.
    • 29 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Matthew_Lowson)
    Surely what people should be doing here is congratulating the Home Secretary for taking what I view is the correct and necessary decision to protect the people of the United Kingdom. Any decision made by this House should be taken in the interests of the people

    Decisions on overriding the decision of the ECHR are never taken lightly or if it is in anyway not in the interest of the people then it shall not be done.
    People are so concerned with kicking him out they ate forgetting the principle behind why it was originally refused and that is that it is believed he may not recieve a far trial in Jordan and might be tortured.
    Now whilst I agree he's a scumbag, in principle we should never deport a person when there is a chance he/she will not recieve a fair trial and may be tortured.
    I think many people forget this but it's something that needs to be remembered and addressed. I certainly wouldn't support this unless I knew for sure.
    • 29 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ham and Cheese)
    I have outlined the reasons for deporting Abu Qatada in my statement to the House and in the recent motion on the topic.

    I could not care less if he is tortured when he returns to Jordan. He has been found guilty of a number of crimes, including terrorist related activity, in Jordan; as Home Secretary I refuse to harbour criminals in this country who have unspent prison time in another country. Upon his return to Jordan, if the authorities decide to use torture, then that is their decision.

    The Government has a duty of care towards its citizens. I would not be comfortable with a terrorist living on my road, and I should therefore not be comfortable with a terrorist living on my neighbour's road. Qatada is a threat to our society and people and an excessive cost and drain of police resources.

    As Home Secretary, I have the power to deport anyone, without the consent of the House. The reason I made the statement was to update the House of my activities and of a high profile case.

    I believe I have made the right decision in the interests of the British people.
    So just to recap, the home secretary is saying "we are deporting someone and I don't care if he's tortured."

    Putting aside the mans character for a moment, doesn't the home secretary believe such a thing should never be said regardless of who they are talking about?

    Deporting a man and condemning him to torture is itself inhumane.
    • 60 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Birchington)
    I couldn't agree with this more.

    The government's aggressive rejection of the ongoing debate over this case is undemocratic and should be condemned. The government cannot be allowed to arrogantly cast aside the opposition to their reactionary and immature handling of the Qatada case.
    I agree fully with this, the government has shown itself to be reactionary in the extreme throughout it's handling of this case.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ham and Cheese)
    I have outlined the reasons for deporting Abu Qatada in my statement to the House and in the recent motion on the topic.

    I could not care less if he is tortured when he returns to Jordan. He has been found guilty of a number of crimes, including terrorist related activity, in Jordan; as Home Secretary I refuse to harbour criminals in this country who have unspent prison time in another country. Upon his return to Jordan, if the authorities decide to use torture, then that is their decision.

    The Government has a duty of care towards its citizens. I would not be comfortable with a terrorist living on my road, and I should therefore not be comfortable with a terrorist living on my neighbour's road. Qatada is a threat to our society and people and an excessive cost and drain of police resources.

    As Home Secretary, I have the power to deport anyone, without the consent of the House. The reason I made the statement was to update the House of my activities and of a high profile case.

    I believe I have made the right decision in the interests of the British people.
    Right so your response is a touch confusing, you seemingly say that it is for his crimes in Jordan that he is being deported then go into some spiel about him being a threat to britain, the 2 factors should be completely seperate, the fact you feel he is a threat to national security is a seperate issue and should be treated as such.

    Now onto my main point, seeing as you're happy to be complicit in torture, your goverment should draft a bill immediately pulling out of the ECHR, and another one defineing exactly under what circumstances torture is and is not acceptable, otherwise this is nothing but an arbitrary and irresponsible use of executive power.

    This is of course not even mentioning the shambolic way this has been handled by the government. A rushed motion put out in the hope of securing cross party support, then when it turned out this support was not so abundant, you plowed on anyway disregarding house opinion under the pretense that you are home sec and you can do this if you like, despite the fact it was clear that cross party support was wanted on the issue, yet when this support did not come you were unwilling to negotiate or comprimise, which begs the question why submit the motion in the first place if you were going to do what you liked anyway?
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ham and Cheese)
    I could not care less if he is tortured when he returns to Jordan.
    If this is your view, then the terrorists have already won.
    • 10 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jsb123)
    If this is your view, then the terrorists have already won.
    I don't agree with my colleague has said but how have they won? we are deporting them back to their country to face the music from crimes they committed. Now if they are terrorists that support/going to carry out attacks on British citizens, then surely them being tortured is nothing compared to the loss of British life?

    In France for instance, we are having a mass expulsion of radicals and terrorists in the wake of the recent attacks in Midi-Pyrénées and Paris (which are still on-going), if the ECHR try and get involved there and say those people cannot be deported (which I believe the ECHR would say as most of these have created a life in France), there would be outrage from not only the Right but the Left. I do not understand why the Left in this country pander to the 'rights' of terrorists? what is wrong with you, whereby you support terrorists at the expense of your fellow countrymen?
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tehFrance)
    I don't agree with my colleague has said but how have they won? we are deporting them back to their country to face the music from crimes they committed. Now if they are terrorists that support/going to carry out attacks on British citizens, then surely them being tortured is nothing compared to the loss of British life?

    In France for instance, we are having a mass expulsion of radicals and terrorists in the wake of the recent attacks in Midi-Pyrénées and Paris (which are still on-going), if the ECHR try and get involved there and say those people cannot be deported (which I believe the ECHR would say as most of these have created a life in France), there would be outrage from not only the Right but the Left. I do not understand why the Left in this country pander to the 'rights' of terrorists? what is wrong with you, whereby you support terrorists at the expense of your fellow countrymen?
    People "pander" to the rights of terrorists (ridiculous terminology to use that is completely loaded) because defending the rights of extremists ensures the rights of the rest of us, and the rights are there for everyone, regardless of how detestable we may find them, that's why they're rights and not priveleges.

    I find it ridiculous how the "right" (now I hate using this term because I'd consider myself part of the right) find it so easy to pick and choose who gets rights and who doesn't based on their opinion of the people in question, and furthermore when they're challenged on it, they rarely come up with rational explanations, rather resorting to emotional pleas that somehow people who actually have a respect for rights are putting terrorist "rights" above that of their own citizens or whatever. Lets make no mistake here, we're not the ones prioritising certain people's rights over others, you are. We're the ones who treat people's rights equally regardless of how detestable we find them, you're the ones deciding rights are subjective dependant on how agreeable you find the persons viewpoint in question. So it's a complete fallacy to resort to this emotional spin of "OMG you care more about terrorists than regular people", which is what you've resorted to sadly.
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I find this a disturbing turn of events, we have a government in power who doesn't care about people getting tortured... Not only going against the ECHR, but also our obligations under the UNCAT (which Jordan is also breaching), but more disturbingly showing such moral paucity and reckless impatience in what is a sensitive political issue.
    • 16 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    May I ask under what power Ham and Cheese is proposing to deport Abu Qatada? As far as I was aware, in the Model House of Commons (as opposed to real life), the only two Government positions with constitutional power over and above that of an MP are the Prime Minister and the Foregn Secretary, with any other roles assigned being nothing more than arbitary titles. Therefore, if I am not mistaken (and my apoligies if I am), the 'Home Secretary' is attempting to use a power that has not been formally bestowed upon him and, to make it worse, is clearly going against the wishes of the house in doing so as evidenced by the responses to both this statement and the recent motion on this topic.
    • 5 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Eru Iluvatar)
    I find this a disturbing turn of events, we have a government in power who doesn't care about people getting tortured... Not only going against the ECHR, but also our obligations under the UNCAT (which Jordan is also breaching), but more disturbingly showing such moral paucitSi y and reckless impatience in what is a sensitive political issue.
    So you're suggesting our government has a duty to protect those who happen to be Islamic terrorists who would love nothing more than to blow up a plane or a train carrying British families?
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CLS94)
    May I ask under what power Ham and Cheese is proposing to deport Abu Qatada? As far as I was aware, in the Model House of Commons (as opposed to real life), the only two Government positions with constitutional power over and above that of an MP are the Prime Minister and the Foregn Secretary, with any other roles assigned being nothing more than arbitary titles. Therefore, if I am not mistaken (and my apoligies if I am), the 'Home Secretary' is attempting to use a power that has not been formally bestowed upon him and, to make it worse, is clearly going against the wishes of the house in doing so as evidenced by the responses to both this statement and the recent motion on this topic.

    The Home Secretary has the power to deport individuals from the country without the consent, through the form of a vote, of the House.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Naturally, I am opposed to this without talks with the Jordanian Representative. It also seemed that the house itself was largely opposed without dialogue with the Representative, and I think rushing what is a complicated situation to be utterly wrong.

    Glad I agree with JPKC on this
    • 44 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DebatingGreg)
    Naturally, I am opposed to this without talks with the Jordanian Representative. It also seemed that the house itself was largely opposed.
    I am continuing negotiations with the Jordanian representative as a matter of urgency and will make a statement to the House once I have these assurances.

    (Well I say continuing, I really mean begin given that the rep hasn't shown up yet. )
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by toronto353)
    I am continuing negotiations with the Jordanian representative as a matter of urgency and will make a statement to the House once I have these assurances.

    (Well I say continuing, I really mean begin given that the rep hasn't shown up yet. )
    Sorry, meant to say "before the talks had concluded."
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mr Dangermouse)
    So you're suggesting our government has a duty to protect those who happen to be Islamic terrorists who would love nothing more than to blow up a plane or a train carrying British families?
    Our government has a responsibility to guarantee rights to everyone within it's jurisdiction, not just those it picks and chooses. Please stop with the whole emotionally driven "but he wants to kill British people" line, it undermines any actual legitimate argument those in favour of deportation may have if you keep just reverting to that same line of emotionally driven argument whenever questioned. If he's truly a danger to society, lets try him, and then if/when he's found guilty we can imprison him/punish him how we see fit, where there would be no threat of torture.

    If we're OK with deporting him without guarantees of his not being tortured, then the government should put a bill forward specifying exactly upon what grounds putting someone at risk torture is justified. The executive should not pick and choose arbitrarily who it is and isn't justified to put at risk of torture. It should be a clear and defined process, just like with any other crime and punishment. I would not agree with such a bill because I don't agree with torture for anyone, but at least then, if passed, it would be clear when and for who torture is justified, unlike now where it is just seemingly subject to the arbitrary whim of the executive.
    • 16 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ham and Cheese)
    The Home Secretary has the power to deport individuals from the country without the consent, through the form of a vote, of the House.
    Yes, but I remember seeing at one point in the post-election thread that the only two official roles in the MHoC are Prime Minister and Foriegn Secretary. If there is no designated role for a Home Secretary, how can you just take the powers of that role that hasn't been designated under the MHoC's constitution?
Updated: April 10, 2012
Article updates
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.